If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Chapman

Originally Posted by RedEye

I don't know how many times I've read the phrase "There's no guarantee that Chapman will be a dominant starter" in the reasoning of posters (not you). To me, that sounds like, word-for-word, a demand for a guarantee.

It's actually been the other way around. Many proponents for starter have failed to recognize that the successful transition is not a guarantee. That's what that is in reference too. I actually have not seen one proponent of chapman for relief in this thread. The other side I would characterize as being open to that idea if there was information that suggested to the reds front office that te transition was likely not to succeed. That viewpoint has been consistently misrepresented throughout the thread.

Likes:

Re: Chapman

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

It's actually been the other way around. Many proponents for starter have failed to recognize that the successful transition is not a guarantee. That's what that is in reference too. I actually have not seen one proponent of chapman for relief in this thread. The other side I would characterize as being open to that idea if there was information that suggested to the reds front office that te transition was likely not to succeed. That viewpoint has been consistently misrepresented throughout the thread.

Sounds like classic polarization of an argument to me. PB, I've read most everything you've written in this thread and you, along with Kc61 and a few others, have espoused a generally nuanced argument about why Chapman might be better off in the pen. I appreciate that. I disagree, but I appreciate it.

Also, I just want to bring back this point that traderumor and Kc61 made much earlier on, before Doc's (false) report got us all charged up earlier today:

without Aroldis, is the Reds' rotation really that good? Is it a playoff winning rotation? I think it's a fair question and probably the key issue as the Reds think this through.

I think the answer is "not so much" or "maybe." The Reds have two starters (Cueto, Latos) who could be top-shelf playoff starters and a third (Bailey) who has flashed the ability in patches. But I say aces like this are the number one asset to have heading to the post-season, and that a team should stop at nothing to find out whether they have one or not.

Is there a guarantee that Chapman is this kind of starter? No way. But he shows all the signs you look for.

"Iíll kind of have a foot on the back of my own butt. Thatís just how I do things.Ē -- Bryan Price, 10/22/2013

Re: Chapman

Originally Posted by dougdirt

If Walt thinks Chapman will be a good starter, then I don't care about anyone else on the team as far as their role when it comes to playing into how to use Chapman.

Exactly. Taking a simple situation and adding all sorts of complexities is what got us into this mess in the first place. Bottom line is Aroldis Chapman is a ludicrously talented pitcher never given close to a chance to show what he can do. Ryan Madson's elbow, Bill Bray's groin, or Broxton's K rate is not a valid excuse for that.

Likes:

Re: Chapman

Originally Posted by Superdude

Exactly. Taking a simple situation and adding all sorts of complexities is what got us into this mess in the first place. Bottom line is Aroldis Chapman is a ludicrously talented pitcher never given close to a chance to show what he can do. Ryan Madson's elbow, Bill Bray's groin, or Broxton's K rate is not a valid excuse for that.

It's only a simple situation if you are Chapman's agent. His only interest is Chapman's career.

Walt has broader responsibilities.

And while some might think that Aroldis as a "good starter" may answer all questions, I doubt Walt does.

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most
importantly, enjoy yourselves!

RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball